Skip to main content

View Diary: Keystone: Can we even admit that this is political? (36 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Come on, you don't need to lie (0+ / 0-)

    The Kalamazoo River spill happened about 4 years ago and not 40. That particular pipeline was less than a year old when it happened. There were over 70 spills on this new pipeline, that was supposedly state of the art, in it's first year of service.

    Like I said before, the Kalamazoo River needs to be cleaned up before we allow another larger version of this pipeline moving Tar Sands Bitumen. The exemption also needs to be removed, these companies need to contribute to the spill fund if bitumen flows through these pipes too.

    Really don't mind if you sit this one out. My words but a whisper -- your deafness a SHOUT. I may make you feel but I can't make you think..Jethro Tull

    by RMForbes on Mon Apr 21, 2014 at 06:27:04 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  You are seriously mis-informed about Line 6B (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bailey22

      The pipeline that broke in the Kalamazoo River spill event in 2010 was over 40 years old.....it was NOT less than a year old.....you are spreading erroneous claims and bad information by saying the Enbridge Kalamazoo River spill occurred in a one year old line.

      Enbridge Line 6B is being replaced, but the replacement pipeline has not started operating yet.

      There is not any regulatory basis to require that the KXL pipeline be denied because Enbridge has not yet completed cleanup of the Kalamazoo River.

      You can easily verify all of the matters about Line 6b by reading the NTSB report on the 2010 accident.  If you read that report, you'll also see how Enbridge was completely irresponsible and that this entire pipeline accident could have been prevented and avoided.

      How about spending some time educating yourself instead of tossing off flip accusations of dishonesty?  

      You'll be more effective in environmental stewardship if you take some time to become informed;  most notably you'll see that the tar sands heavy sour crude did not have anything to do with the physical cause of the Enbridge Line 6B accident:

      http://www.ntsb.gov/...

      https://www.ntsb.gov/...

      http://www.ntsb.gov/...

      http://www.ntsb.gov/...

      •  You miss the point and it's not completely (0+ / 0-)

        true that bitumen had nothing to do with this accident.

        Bitumen slurry requires both higher pressures and temperatures than sweet crude. It is very likely that the higher pressures and temperatures require to push tar sands bitumen through this pipe was at least a contributing factor in the pipeline failure. It was gross criminal engineering malfeasance to push bitumen at high pressure through a grossly under engineered and poorly maintained pipeline designed for sweet crude.

        Until these companies can prove they can safely move bitumen through a pipeline without creating these types of disasters we shouldn't allow an extra large version. At least not a single wall pipe. And yes they also need to prove they can effectively clean a spill up before they be allowed to build new larger pipelines.

        Why don't you address the exemption to the spill cleanup fund enjoyed by the bitumen producers?

        Really don't mind if you sit this one out. My words but a whisper -- your deafness a SHOUT. I may make you feel but I can't make you think..Jethro Tull

        by RMForbes on Mon Apr 21, 2014 at 09:04:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site